TEJKARAN JAIN S/O SHRI N. C. JAIN v. CHIEF MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
CW/1356/2022 · 2025-02-18
Sudesh Bansal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4861 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4861 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:7077] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1356/2022 Tejkaran Jain S/o Shri N. C. Jain, Aged About 48 Years, R/o T-45, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur Presently 245, Gayatri Nagar-A, Maharani Farm, Durgapura, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus
1. Chief Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Office 3Rd And 2Nd Floor, Jeevan Prakash Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur.
2. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Divisional Office, Haldighati Marg, Sanganer, Jaipur.
3. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation Of India, Ambedkar Circle, Jeevan Nidhi, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.
4. Marketing Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Haldighati Marg, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order 18/02/2025
1. Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction against the respondent-LIC, to release the renewal commission in respect of the policies renewed by the petitioner, being LIC agent, w.e.f. 05.08.2020 and in that regard, letter dated 02.07.2021 was issued by the Chief Manager, LIC, holding the petitioner non- qualified for renewal commission has also been challenged.
[2025:RJ-JP:7077] (2 of 2) [CW-1356/2022]
2. Having gone through the pleadings of writ petition and documents enclosed therein, this Court finds that the claim for payment of commission of the policies, allegedly renewed by petitioner being LIC agent, is connected with the intricacies of disputed facts and such issues can be adjudicated after recording evidence and are not amenable to be considered within scope of writ petition.
3. In view of above, this Court does not find the present case to be a fit case to grant indulgence in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, relegates petitioner to avail appropriate remedy before the Civil Court, if petitioner so desires.
4. With the aforesaid obversation, instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
5. Any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J SOURAV /37